( 1 ) LEARNED Advocate Mr Munshaw is appearing for the petitioners in this group of petitions and learned Advocate Mr Pathak is appearing for the respondent-workman in each petition.

( 2 ) RULE Learned Advocate Mr P H Pathak appearing for the respondent-workman in each petition has waived service of rule On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, all these petitions have been taken up for final hearing today itself.

( 3 ) IN this group of petitions, this Court (Coram : Miss R M Doshit, J.) issued notice to the respondents returnable on 17th December, 1999 and meanwhile, ad interim relief in terms of para S (C) has been granted.

( 4 ) IN the present petitions, the petitioner-Board has challenged the order passed by the labour Court, Amreli in Recovery Application Nos 318 to 360 of 1998 (Old Nos 866 to 980 of 1995) The labour Court has passed a common order in the said group of recovery applications under Sec 33 (C) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("the I D Act" for short ).

( 5 ) THE facts of the present petitions, in short, are that the respondent-workmen are working with the petitioner-Board as a Diesel Operator, Electrical Operator, Attendant, Watchman, Attendant-Filter Plant, Lineman, Lineman-cum-Chowkidar, Store watchman, Storeman, etc That all the respondent-workmen had filed the aforesaid recovery applications on the ground that according to the rules of the petitioner-Board and under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, the respondent-workmen are required to work eight hours in a day, meaning thereby, their working hours are eight hours in a day However, the petitioner-Board has taken work of 12 hours in a day and the wages for the over-time work which has been performed by the respondent-workmen has not been paid by the petitioner-Board, and therefore, the workmen concerned had approached the labour Court, Amreli by filing the aforesaid recovery applications inter alia raising demand for over-time wages from the petitioner-Board However, at that time, the concerned Officer had given threat for terminating their services, and therefore, immediately, no proceedings were filed by the respondent-workman. That each respondent-workman has given details at annexure "a" to the application wherein the date of joining, working hours, rate of wages, claim of over-time wages and difference of salary etc The demand was for payment of the legitimate dues with 18% of interest According to the respondent-workmen, in fact, they had worked for over-time and inspite of that, the amount of wages for over-time work performed by them have not been paid to them. The claim of the respondent-workmen is based on the provisions of the Minimum wages Act and the Rules framed thereunder, and therefore, it was a pre-existing right of the respondent-workmen to claim the over-time wages from the petitioner-Board.

( 6 ) THE petitioner-Board had contested the claim by filing common written statement at Exh 7 before the labour Court and has disputed the averments made by the respondents in their applications According to the petitioner-Board, the work was taken from the respondent-workmen according to the policy of the petitioner-Board and that there was no breach of the provisions of the Minimum wages Act or the Rules framed thereunder; that the respondent-workmen are not the permanent employees of the petitioner-Board and that the respondents had not worked for over-time as alleged It is also disputed by the petitioner-Board that the respondent-workmen had worked for 12 hours as alleged, and therefore, there is no need to pay the over-time wages to the respondent-workmen. the consent of the parties and after filing of the reply by the petitioner-Board, the

( 7 ) THE labour Court had consolidated all the said applications with respondent- workmen had produced the documents vide Exh 18 Daily Register of the working hours of the Operator has been produced where the working hours have been mentioned and the same has also